viridisos__viridis_bind_did

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must stand alone. It mentions that it is a 'staging preview; non-authoritative until the K3 swap', which provides some context. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is idempotent, whether it has side effects, or what permissions are required.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with a generic system preamble that is not specific to this tool, taking up space. The key action is in the second sentence. It could be more concise, but the structure is logical.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description lacks critical details: what the return value looks like, any prerequisites, and how to properly use the parameters. The staging warning is useful, but overall the tool is insufficiently documented for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the parameters 'agent_id' or 'pubkey'. It adds no meaning beyond the parameter names, leaving agents without guidance on valid values or formats.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the tool 'derives the canonical did:viridis identity' for an agent, which is clear and specific. However, the initial bracketed text includes other capabilities of the ViridisOS system that are not directly relevant to this tool, slightly diluting focus.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like viridisos__viridis_agent_attestation or other bind-related tools are not mentioned, and there is no 'when not to use' advice.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.